Returning to the main theme of this thread, I think both Rope’s book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, and his efforts to defend it on this forum, suffered from a similar flaw.
In neither could I discern any sign that Rope was at all cognizant of the mountain of empirical evidence supporting evolution, or the fact that design advocates had been credibly accused of misrepresenting this evidence.
Rope seemed to regard it as an issue simply of dueling arguments – and thus an issue that he, as a philosopher, was in a legitimate position to adjudicate, without any need to to understand the underlying evidence.
I’m not sure if I could accurately characterise this viewpoint as “Post-modernist” – but it would seem to be in that general vicinity.
It is not a viewpoint that I have much sympathy for. And I get the strong impression that I am not alone on this on this forum.